From owner-freebsd-stable Sat May 5 17:33:17 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from phoenix.volant.org (dickson.phoenix.volant.org [205.179.79.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B96D37B42C for ; Sat, 5 May 2001 17:33:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from patl@Phoenix.Volant.ORG) Received: from asimov.phoenix.volant.org ([205.179.79.65]) by phoenix.volant.org with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #8) id 14wCU5-0007V4-00; Sat, 5 May 2001 17:33:13 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by asimov.phoenix.volant.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA02998; Sat, 5 May 2001 17:33:14 -0700 (PDT) From: patl@Phoenix.Volant.ORG Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 17:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: patl@Phoenix.Volant.ORG Subject: Theory -vs- practice Was: soft update should be default To: Doug Russell Cc: stable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 5-May-01 at 15:56, Doug Russell (drussell@saturn-tech.com) wrote: > > > I still don't totally understand this. In the case of a drive with > > > WCE, aren't we always assuming that the drive will correctly write > > > the data out eventually, even if the system crashes? > > > > Yes. But that assumption is flawed. > > As I said before... In THEORY, in a perfect world. :) From the "I wish I'd said that" archives: In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is no similarity. -Pat To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message